1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to novel wall veneer means and more particularly to such means of superior cost and safety effectiveness.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Presently conventional techniques for the attachment of tile, brick, or other veneer facing units to outer building walls are relatively time consuming and require the services of skilled tile setters or the like. Hence such methods are costly. Typically they involve the application of a layer of mortar (bed mortar) to the building wall followed by the spaced setting or laying of the veneer units on the bed mortar and allowing the mortar to set. After the mortar has set, the spaces between the units are generally pointed with grout. There are several ways facing units are presently applied to a wall, all of which require the wall to be worked in a relatively small section at a time, allowing the mortar to set in that section and then going on to work another section. One such method involves the use of a grill removable attachment to the section of wall being worked which divides that section into spaces sized and adapted to receive the individual bricks, or other facing units. After all of the spaces have been filled with the units and the bed mortar has set, the grill is moved to another section and the procedure repeated.
In addition to the slow, tedious and expensive character of presently employed methods of applying tiles, bricks or other facing units to building walls, the veneered walls resulting from such methods present certain safety hazards. Because the facing units are bonded to the building walls only by mortar and held in position by little else, if the mortar bond with the wall gives way behind one or more of the units, there is a tendency for that unit, or units, to become dislodged and fall. The potential hazard to any person underneath the point where such a unit is loosened and falls is obvious, particularly where the wall is high up on a building. Furthermore, property can be damaged by falling bricks, or the like, from high up on veneered building walls. The loosening of such facing units from walls veneered in the presently conventional manner can be brought about by the everyday forces to which building walls, particularly outer walls, are subjected as a result of exposure to wind forces, temperature changes, snow and/or rain, and other normal environmental conditions. When such building walls are subjected to unusually severe forces or conditions, the facing units can come loose to create great harm to life and property. In an earthquake, for example, the rain of bricks, tiles or the like, from veneered building walls on persons and property in the streets below could create great havoc and destruction. In the event of a major fire, a cold stream of water directed by firemen onto veneered wall surfaces heated by the blaze could result in such a severe temperature stock as to again cause the facing units to come loose and fall onto firemen, or others, below.
The prior art of which I am aware has, since at least as early as the 1930s proposed various alternative ways of adding veneer skins to building walls. These various expedients have all involved one or more of three concepts. One concept entails the utilization of metal panels which are pieced together on a wall surface to be veneered and which are provided with spaced clips, tangs or the like positioned to receive facing units therebetween and help to hold the units in place. The panels are first fastened to a wall surface, and the facing units then positioned thereon. Mortar or the like is employed in one way or another in conjunction with these panels. U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,850,961 to Mortenson; 1,861,359 to Pyron and 1,982,560 to Williams show panels exemplary of this concept. Such panels would be difficult and expensive to manufacture today, and therefore not competitive enough with conventional techniques in the building trades to warrant serious consideration by any building contractor or subcontractor. This would have been even more true in the early '30s when these patents issued, because that was during the depths of the depression with very little building activity of any sort going on. Moreover, facing units attached to such panels would be no more resistant to dislodge and fall than facing units installed by the conventional techniques used today. In fact, it seems likely that such panel-mounted bricks, or the like, would be even less stable and secure than the conventionally installed facing units on today's buildings.
A second prior art concept as an alternative to conventional tiling or other facing unit installation techniques requires the use of specialized interfitting hardware and facing units for positioning of the units on some sort of a backing panel or other structure. This concept requires the manufacture of highly specialized hardware parts and facing units or slabs for use in lieu of the mass-produced conventional tiles, bricks, or the like. It also requires the use of mortar to help retain the facing units in position, similarly to conventional tile setting and other veneer installation techniques, and it has never been accepted for widespread usage insofar as I am aware. Perhaps the reason for this has been the higher cost of the hardware and specialized facing units involved and the tedious, time consuming necessity of handling a plurality of hardware items to position them for receiving facing units on a wall to be veneered thereby. U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,022,363 to Vertuno and 3,142,938 to Eberhardt disclose such veneering expedients.
A third prior art concept for alternative wall veneer construction involves the use of simulated brick or other veneer panels or rolls that are attachable to building walls. Such fake veneers employ thin, lightweight slabs simulating bricks or the like and are therefore not true counterparts of veneer skins employing conventional facing units, but "false fronts" simulating the real thing. Moreover, such "veneer" construction materials are, at least in some cases, much flimsier and less durable than true brick, or other, veneer constructions. Examples of patents disclosing materials of this type are U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,853,324 to Krauss and 3,077,059 to Stout. The Krauss patent combines two of the above-mentioned concepts (interfitting panels to be installed on a building wall and the use of thin, simulated blocks, typically 1/4- or 1/3-inch thick, thereon). The Stout patent includes a backing of corrugated cardboard, which can be fastened to "wood studdings which are customarily used in wall construction." This apparently limits the type of wall structures on which that veneer material can be used. Moreover, the simulated veneer units of Stout must be fashioned with bore holes to receive wires which are threaded therethrough and interlaced with a wire mesh material forming part of the veneer structure, which adds to the cost of the facing units.
As will be clear from the above, presently conventional techniques for the attachment of facing units to building walls to form tile, brick, or like veneers thereon are relatively costly and leave much to be desired in the way of safety effectivness. Alternatives to these conventional techniques have been proposed since at least the early '30s, but no such alternative has yet succeeded in overcoming the cost and safety disadvantages of the conventional techniques. For the most part, in fact, the alternatives have been even more costly than conventional tile setting and other veneer construction methods.